2014-05-02 / Letters

Planning board members shouldn’t play favorites

To the editor:

In response to the Sentry’s April 18 story, “Hundred-seat restaurant plan nixed,” by Duke Harrington, I find the matter disturbing for many reasons, but most notably for the lack of “transparency,” as quoted by Planning Board member Liza Quinn, in assessing the motives of the aforementioned person, in being singularly obsessed, seemingly out of nowhere (as The Good Table has been open for over a quarter of a century) with how many seats The Good Table has had or currently has over the past year.

Ms. Quinn’s opinion is given as fact and her motives, despite her attempts otherwise, are very transparent, when she so called discreetly went to count seats at The Good Table or when she is sure “as the day is long” if more diners had shown up they’d have been sat, or how she doesn’t feel the Kostopulos’ are “bad people.” How does the violation of the number of seats determine whether the Kostopulos’ are “good or bad people”? And, who is she to be the arbitrator of such a pronouncement? However, even though Rudy’s Restaurant has nothing to do with this situation, Ms. Quinn ends up getting an endorsement in on Rudy’s behalf and hence unintentionally outs her original motives by basically stating in so many words, “This is unfair to Rudy’s.” What I think is unfair and immoral is that a person can use their position on the planning board to disparage the name of a business that has been a part of Cape Elizabeth and its’ citizens lives for 27 years because she is a known associate of the business that is going in next door. Let’s look at the “transparency” there.

Karen Underwood
Cape Elizabeth

Return to top